Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
shapeyourphone

shapeyourphone

by rachitkj
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

launcher_apps

Read-only

Lists installed apps and their package names on an Android phone over adb, optionally targeting a specific device when multiple phones are connected.

Instructions

Installed apps: name → package.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "launcher_apps"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
deviceNoadb serial, only needed when several phones are connected

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description contributes the return shape (name mapped to package), which matters because there is no output schema, but it says nothing about scope (all apps vs. launcher-visible apps) or whether results are per-device.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

It is a single compact fragment with no wasted words and the key information front-loaded. It is arguably under-specified rather than bloated, so terseness costs nothing structurally but the fragment form limits clarity.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining results, and "name → package" is only a partial sketch. Given 30+ launcher_* siblings and an ambiguous name, the definition leaves open whether this lists all device packages, launcher-configured apps, or per-device inventories.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the single optional `device` parameter is already documented in the schema as an adb serial needed only with multiple phones. The description adds nothing beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

"Installed apps: name → package" identifies the resource (installed apps) and the shape of the result, so an agent can infer this is a listing/query tool. But it is a noun phrase with no verb and no explicit statement that it retrieves anything, and it does not distinguish itself from the many other launcher_* siblings.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives (e.g. launcher_status, launcher_get_config, launcher_rules), and no prerequisites. The agent must infer from the name alone that this is the tool to call to discover installed packages.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools